Posting # 29

You will find it helpful to read Posting 2 (above) before

EXAMINING THE SO-CALLED “UNIVERSALISTIC” TEXTS.

(Note: The following material is found in the book Unconditional Good News by N. Punt, Copyright 1980 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., pp 31-55. The standard credit line must be included on all copies of this material.)

  On the basis of Rom. 5:18 Dr. Charles Hodge claimed that: "ALL THE DESCENDANTS OF ADAM . . . ARE SAVED" and that only the Bible itself may indicate those who will be exceptions to this premise.

  Rom. 5:18 [and the other so-called “universalistic” passages] teach us that “it is more congenial with the nature of God to bless than to curse, to save than to destroy” according to Hodge (Hodge, Systematic Theology , 1888, Vol. I, P. 26, emphasis added).

  In this Posting we intend to demonstrate that (1) each of the following texts speaks of the full benefits of salvation in Christ ; and (2) this salvation is applied to all persons . The necessary exceptions to these universal declarations are not found in the immediate context of these passages but in the broader context of the Scriptures as a whole (See Posting # 3 entitled “All Are . . . Some Are not.").

  It is significant, that, although technical details relating to the original language must be considered, the conclusion arrived at in this posting is that each of the following texts can be accepted just as it found in most English translations. The evidence for Biblical Universalism is readily discerned by reading the commonly accepted translations of the texts involved (see Observation 1 below).

I Corinthians 15:22 : “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

  Does the phrase “shall all be made alive” refer only to the physical resurrection of the body, making this a declaration of the general resurrection of all persons? Or does this phrase imply newness of life, including the resurrection of the body - for the elect? I believe it has the latter meaning for the following reasons:

  (1) The words “in Christ” are used. It is true that this expression can be used to include more than the elect; it is used when the redemption of “all things” is spoken of (Col. 1:16, 17; Eph. 1:9, 10). Nowhere in Scripture, however, is the phrase “in Christ” used to designate any persons who are finally lost. It is impossible for anyone “in Christ” to be lost. “If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17). Those who are made alive “in Christ” are saved.

  (2) Similarly, the verb “made alive” is nowhere used of unbelievers. Kittel's authoritative Theological Dictionary says of this Greek word; “In the New Testament and post-apostolic fathers [it] always means ‘to make alive' in the soteriological [saving] sense.” (*1 footnotes below)

  (3) The theme of the entire fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians is the hope of those who are joined to Christ, for they share in his resurrection.

  Some have felt bound to say that the text refers to the general resurrection of all persons because they cannot deny that the second “all” here is a distributive universal just as much as the first “all.” They say that Paul does speak of the general resurrection of all persons in contrast to the resurrection of believers, since in several verses the phrase “from dead” appears in the original without the definite article “the.” (*2) This they take to be a reference to the dead in general, and they say that when Paul means the resurrection of believers, he uses the expression “from the dead” (with the article).

  The absence of the article in these verses has, however, been adequately accounted for by Grosheide and others. (*3) They make the point that the phrase “from dead” without the article indicates that Christ arose from the realm of death as a quality, not that he left other dead behind.

  (4) The final reason for saying that 1 Corinthians 15:22 speaks of the new spiritual and physical life in which all the elect and only the elect participate is that in verse 23 Christ is declared the “first fruits” of those who are made alive. They are also “those who belong to Christ.” In Neither instance can these expressions designate those who will ultimately be lost.

  That being made alive in Christ is a benefit which the text applies to all persons distributively (each person head for head) can be seen in these considerations:

  (1) “All” appears without the article. Unless modified by the immediate context its primary meaning is “all persons distributively” (see Observation 4 below).

  (2) The very structure of the sentence suggests “all” without modifications; it says “in Christ shall all be made alive,” it does not say “all in Christ shall be made alive.” To say that Paul uses this structure in order to maintain the parallel between the first and the second parts of the sentence begs the question. If Paul had meant to maintain a parallel structure without having in mind all persons distributively in relationship to Christ, he could have written, “For as all in Adam die, so also all in Christ shall be made alive.”

  (3) It is generally acknowledged that the first “all” is a distributive referring to all persons universally. It is most unlikely that the identical word used in a totally parallel grammatical construction within the same text would have a different denotation, unless there were some notice of an exchange of terms.

  These arguments are weighty in themselves, but they are especially impressive because the only way to refute them is to claim that the benefit spoken of is the gift of new life in Christ, so that the second “all” cannot be a reference to all persons distributively. This refutation is based on an invalid theological presupposition, name, that there is no sense in which Scripture can ever say “all persons are elect in Christ” (See Observation 1 below).

  1 Corinthians 15:22 depicts salvation in Christ. The words and grammatical structure of the text point to an unrestricted application of this benefit to all persons. An impartial reading of this verse - indeed of this entire chapter - in isolation from the rest of Scripture would lead one to absolute universalism. Nowhere does this chapter mention any who are ultimately lost; indeed, it says plainly that in Christ all persons are made alive.

  However, as we have stressed repeatedly, this passage, like the other universalistic passages, may not be read and interpreted that way, apart from the rest of Scripture. Therefore the conclusion is properly drawn that 1 Corinthians 15:22, within the general context of Scripture as a whole says that “all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be lost” (see Posting # 3, “All Are . . . Some Are not”).

2 Corinthians 5:14, 15: For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”

  It would be difficult to deny the universalism of this passage. Not only does the word “all” point in the direction of universalism (See Observation 4 below); so does the sentence structure. It reads “one has died for all” - a much wider extension than if it said, “all in the one have died.”

  Mention of the “all” for whom Christ died leads some to take this text as teaching Arminian or Lutheran universalism. They contend that the phrase “therefore all have died” means that in the death of Christ the moral and legal barrier preventing the salvation of all persons has been removed. God's judgment and wrath against sin have been taken away. All have died because Christ died for all and atoned for the sins of all. Christ's death was their death, and salvation is now available to all those who by faith are willing to receive it. “Those who live” is then a reference to a more restricted number of individuals, namely, those who accept this universal provision in faith.

  Others, while they affirm the distributive universalism of the second “all” in verse 14, find it unacceptable to say that Christ merely made salvation possible by his death. Their view is that Paul has come to the understanding (he is “convinced”) that “one has died for all”; that is, for both Jews and Gentiles - a totality without the article. On this interpretation, the fact that Christ had to die for both Jews and Gentiles caused Paul to understand that the law brought death to all persons distributively; “therefore [the] all have died' (individual application with the article). That is, the realization that all persons are spiritually dead was brought to Paul's consciousness by the fact that Christ died for both Jews and Gentiles. “And he died for all” (for both Jews and Gentiles - same totality without the article) “that those who live” (a more restricted group, namely, believers) should no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”

  Besides seriously questioning the interpretation of “all” as “Jews and gentiles” (see Observation 3 below), we should note that both the preceding views suffer from the error of claiming that “those who live” is restrictive and refers to a smaller, yet component, part of the “all” for whom Christ died.

If we were to suppose that the expression “those that live” is restrictive and does not have the same extent as the “all” for whom Christ died, this would bring us into conflict with the explicit affirmation of Paul in Romans 6:5 and 8, to the effect that those who have been planted into the likeness of Christ's death will also be in the likeness of his resurrection and that those who died with him will also live with him. The analogy of Paul's teaching in Romans 6:4-8 must be applied to 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15. Hence those referred to as “those who live” must have the same extent as those embraced in the preceding clause, “he died for all.” (*4)

  We must view 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15 in its context. The immediate setting discloses that these verses do not constitute a statement of Paul's missionary motivation, as though the meaning were that, since Paul has come to understand that Christ died for all persons, the love he has for Christ constrains him to go out to bring the gospel to all those for whom Christ died. Paul is not talking about his love for Christ; but he is controlled (or “hemmed in on all sides”) by Christ's love for him.

  In verse 14 Paul is speaking of a controlling power which has changed every aspect of his life, not just his missionary zeal. Indeed, this controlling love was evident in his missionary enthusiasm, but the point is that he would have been similarly controlled by the love of Christ had he been a merchant, a farmer, a teacher , or a lawyer. In the words of Ander's Nigen, when

a man is laid open to the action of God, God's Agape is shed abroad in his heart through the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5), and the foundation is thereby laid for the new Spirit-given, Agape life, of which the subject is no longer the man himself, but God, Christ, God's Agape, God's Spirit. Constrained by the Agape of Christ (2Cor. 5:14), or led by the Spirit (Gal. 5:18), the Christian now carries out God's work, bears the fruit of the Spirit. (*5)

  Paul's Spirit-filled life after his conversion was so radically different that many thought he was “beside” himself (vs. 13). He even ate and drank differently ( 1 Cor. 10:31). He knew everyone in a different way (vs. 16). Paul had become a “new creation,” so that everything (not just his missionary motivation) had become new (vs. 17). Now he tried to “persuade men” (vs. 11), to cause them to understand his new life-style, but they did not. In verse 11 Paul expresses the hope that since God understands, his fellow Christians will understand too.

  Beginning in verse 13 Paul explains his seemingly odd behavior (his new life in Christ). The content of this explanation is not so much rational as evangelical, since he declares the revealed truth concerning the actual status of all those joined to Christ; they have died but they also live in Christ. But the form of Paul's argument is persuasively logical. Its structure is this: whatever is said of the totality is true of each of the component parts individually, unless there is something which modifies an application (see Observation 4 below). Paul speaks of the individualized death and individualized new life of all who are in Christ. The “therefore” and the “that” (= “in order that”) in 2 Corinthians 5:14 and 15 indicate that Paul moves on the basis of the first “all” (totality) to the second “all” (individualized application).

  “One has died for all” (a totality without the article), “therefore [the] all have died” (individualized application, with the article). “And he died for all” (same totality, without the article) “that [the living ones] those who live” (individualized application with the article) “might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” From the same truth (“one has died for all”) Paul draws two opposite conclusions by way of individualized application of the totality. All have died and all live because Christ has died for all.

  We have mentioned that Paul is accounting for his own behavior, which his detractors dismissed as very odd. What was being said about Paul also grieved his friends (vv. 11-13), and so he wants to explain to them the cause of his radically different life-style. He is convinced that he has died and is living a new life in Christ. It is the love which Christ has for him that now moves him to do everything differently.

  The apostle indicates that all (the totality) of those for whom Christ died have themselves individually died and also live a new life in Christ. But Paul offers no proof or demonstration of the fact that he himself is included in the number of those for whom Christ died or that he is among those who have new life in Christ. This omission is vital to the chain of his reasoning, since he wants his readers to understand that his different life-style is due to the fact that he has died and that he is living a new life.

Is Paul himself included? Yes. He is among the “all” for whom “the one” died. The “all” is a distributive universal which necessarily includes Paul, just as it includes all other persons individually. This is a truth of which Paul has become “convinced” (as the “because” of vs. 14 indicates). Paul is arguing from the premise that all persons are in Christ except those who disregard or reject the truth. With this premise Paul needs no evidence to prove that he is among those who died and have new life - and consequently none is given.

  When Paul accounts for the change that had taken place in his life, he reasons on the basis of a premise which must have been taken for granted in the church, namely, all persons are in Christ (one has died for all”). He sees no need to validate that premise. He states it and uses it as an axiom upon which he basis his conclusion. Paul is sure he is in Christ because all are in Christ, except. . . . His being “in Christ” accounts for the slander that he was “beside” himself.

  To the objection that on this line of reasoning practically everyone may claim to be a new creation in Christ, the reply is: indeed everyone may if, in response to the revelation God has given concerning his will for his or her life, he or she can say with Paul, “Wherefore . . . I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19). Such obedience does not merit, nor does it become the effectuating cause of, a new standing with God in Christ. Such obedience is the fruit of the redemption Christ has purchased on the cross for all persons except those who willfully and finally refuse to acknowledge God's will for their lives.

2 Corinthians 5:19: “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.”

  That actual, and not merely potential, salvation in Christ is the subject of these words is conveyed by the term “reconciling,” and the phrase “not counting their trespasses against them” placing this interpretation beyond doubt. “Not counting” trespasses is the same as forgiving them. Reconciliation is the process by which God sets aside his own legitimate and necessary grievance against the sinner by virtue of the work of Christ. Christ assumes the guilt and penalty belonging to the sinner. By this action God can and does receive all those for whom Christ died, without compromising his righteousness, holiness and truth.

  About the universal extension of this reconciliation-forgiveness, we should make a few observations. For one thing, it is untenable to suggest that Paul uses “world” here in the cosmological sense of the whole created universe. The context here indicates that the “world” of humanity is intended. This is seen in the fact that the personal pronouns “”them” and “their” have as their antecedent the term “world.”

  “World,” appearing in the Greek without the article, refers to “world” as a totality, in this instance the totality of persons. Whatever is said concerning a totality is true of its constituent parts; if no limiting factor is found in the immediate context (see Observation 4 below). Not only do we find no limiting factor here, but the plural personal pronouns “them” and “their” indicate that an individualized application of the reconciliation is intended.

  Verse 18 is transitional, reflecting that the gospel Paul proclaimed is the same truth on which he based his own assurance of being “in Christ” (Vs. 14). It is the fact that “God was in Christ reconciling the world [the totality of persons] to himself.” If it were not for the exceptions found elsewhere in Scripture, verse 19 would teach absolute universalism.

  1 Timothy 2:6: “. . . who gave himself a ransom for all.”

  This text has to do with Christ's giving himself, and there is no reason to dispute that it conveys the idea of substitutionary atonement for sin. Because the atonement is said to be for “all,” various attempts have been made to avoid interpreting this verse as teaching absolute universalism.

  One such attempt consists of those Arminian and Lutheran interpretations which state that Christ paid the price and atoned for the sins of all persons, thereby making salvation possible for all without actually redeeming anyone. Yet it is not the simple word “ransom” which is used here, but the compound word “substitute-ransom,” indicating that the exchange of one for the other actually took place.

  Another approach is to say that in verse 1 and 4 of this chapter the words “all men” and in verse 6 the substantive “all” mean all persons without distinction of race, nationality or social position, not all persons individually. Appeal is made to the mention in verse 2 of “kings and all who are in high position” and the reference in verse 7 to Paul as a teacher of the Gentiles. Paul, it is said, is warning Timothy against Jewish exclusivism or perhaps the exclusivism of Gnosticism.

  But what this proposal overlooks is that all persons without distinction of race is still a reference to “all men” distributively. This poses no problems for verse 1 and 4; but if the substantive “all” in verse 6 is not understood somewhat differently, and all persons without distinction of race is construed to mean all persons distributively, then only those who teach provisional salvation and absolute universalists can accept the interpretation. At this point some have sought refuge in the unacceptable claim that the simple substantive “all” means “all class of people” (see Observation 5 below).

  A more recent attempt to escape the apparent absolute universalism of this passage is to assert that Paul is not interested in numbers, groups, classes, or specific individuals at all. The “all men” without the article in verse 1 and 4 is to be taken as an indefinite universal - “anyone at all,” “anyone you please.” In this construction, then, the “all” of verse 6 implies a universal availability of Christ's ransom. It is available to “anyone at all.” The apostle's concern in this passage is to declare that in the actual confrontation of the sinner with the gospel it is God's positive disposition and desire to save the particular sinner whom he confronts with the gospel. (*6)

  The difficulty with this approach is that in verse 5 and 6 the gospel is not actually being proclaimed - any more than “supplications and prayers” are actually being made in verse 1 through 3. Although this approach does justice to verse 4, which discusses the disposition of God in the function of gospel proclamation, it does not do justice to the meaning of verse 6. Verses 5 and 6 are not speaking of an attitude, disposition, or inclination on God's part in the kerygmatic (proclamation) encounter. Those verses declare who Christ is (vs. 5) and what he has in fact done (vs. 6).

  It may be true that as a consequence of Christ's having given himself “a substitute-ransom for all,” salvation is now available to all in the indefinite universal sense of “anyone at all.” But if that is the case we must learn it from other portions of Scripture, since it is not taught here.

  The following interpretations have been given to verse 6:

  (1) “He gave himself a substitute-ransom for all, therefore salvation is provided for all universally” (Arminian or Lutheran universalism).

  (2) “He gave himself a substitute-ransom for all; therefore salvation is available to all” (indefinite universalism).

  (3) “He gave himself a substituted-ransom for all, therefore all persons are saved” (absolute universalism).

  (4) “He gave himself a substituted-ransom for all; therefore all persons are saved except those who the Bible declares will be lost” (biblical universalism).

  The first two conclusions listed above cannot be properly drawn from this text. They are garnered from what certain advocates consider the teaching of Scripture as a whole to be. The third conclusion (absolute universalism) is based solidly on what the text says, but it is in conflict the teaching of Scripture as a whole. It is only the fourth conclusion (biblical universalism) which is based solidly on what this text says and in consistent with the analogy of Scripture.

1 Timothy 4:10: “We have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.”

  The interpretation of this text depends largely on the meaning of the word “Savior.” In the Old Testament this word is applied not only to God but also to men whom God had appointed to deliver his people from the hands of their enemies (Neh. 9:27). God is also called the Savior of his people because he delivered them from Egypt (Ps. 106:21) and because he had demonstrated his loving care and concern for them (Isa. 63:8). Although God does similar works for others, he is never said to be their “savior.”

  The Bible draws a parallel between the physical deliverance of Israel from bondage in Egypt and the deliverance of God's people from sin to everlasting life. It is not surprising, therefore, to find in the New Testament a corresponding enrichment of the word “savior.” The word is used 24 times in the New Testament. Without exception it designates God or the Lord Jesus Christ (as in 1 Tim. 4:10), it never refers to other men.

  Realizing that “Savior” refers exclusively to God and to Jesus Christ in the New Testament, we may next ask whether it is ever used in the sense of general benefactor, preserver or helper. No doubt God is such a benefactor: he “makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). But does the New Testament ever use the word “Savior” when speaking of God's work of providence and general benevolence?

  In 14 of the 24 instances of “Savior” in the New Testament the immediate context indicates that its meaning is “Savior from sin” - as in 2 Timothy 1:10: “Through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” (*7) In nine further instances the context does not speak to the issue, but there is no reason for questioning that it means “Savior from sin” - as in 1 Timothy 1:1: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope.” (*8)

  Of the 24 times “Savior” is used in the New Testament the theological content of the word is unquestioned in 23 instances. Why would anyone suggest a different meaning for 1 Timothy 4:10? The answer is that if the word means “Savior from sin” here, the implication of the text is absolute universalism. The traditional Reformed understanding is that only in this one instance “Savior” means “benefactor and sustainer of earthly life for all men,” and the phrase “especially of those who believe” is then understood to indicate that God is the “Savior from sin” for those who believe.

  The general Arminian and Lutheran interpretation is that God is the “Savior of all men” in the sense that he designed to save all persons and so he has made provision for their salvation. The qualifying phrase “especially of those who believe” is then seen as a reference to those who accept God's gracious provision in faith. The text, however, says quite plainly that God is “the Savior of all men,” and to be their potential Savior or only to have made provision for their salvation would not make God their Savior any more than one who desired and attempted to save a drowning victim could be called the victim's “savior.”

  Both the traditional Reformed and the “provisional salvation” interpretations place a disjunction between the nature of the salvation which has to do with “all men” and that which has to do with “those who believe.” But the word “especially” does not permit such a disjunction. “Especially” speaks of “more of the same .” It does not ever change the essence or the effect of the action to which it refers; it only connotes an intensity or concentration of that same action. A review of all its other uses in the New Testament confirms this. (*9)

  Typical of how this word is used is 2 Timothy 4:13: “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas , also the books, and above all [especially] the parchments.” Paul surely meant nothing different with regard to the parchments from what he had in mind for the cloak and the books. By the word “especially” he simply meant to tell Timothy to concentrate on, to be particularly aware of, and to be alert to taking the same action in respect to the parchments as to the cloak and books.

  So 1 Timothy 4:10 teaches that God is “the Savior of all men” (in the biblical universal sense). Some of those referred to may not yet be born, others may have temporarily rejected the gospel, still others may not have heard the good news and will come to a knowledge of Christ as their Savior later in life. “Especially of those who believe” means that believers are aware of, concentrate on, are alert to, are cognizant of the fact that God is their Savior from sin. They know him, love him serve him and find all their joy in him.

Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.” (RSV)

  The central question here is whether the phrase “all men” should be read with the verb “has appeared” or joined to the word “salvation” (in the original, “saving”). Some say that the issue is in doubt and could be decided either way, but most interpreters agree that the structure of the sentence points to the reading adopted by the Revised Standard Version. This reading, of course, poses a problem for everyone except the absolute universalistic and the biblical universalist.

  Some Lutheran theologians have preserved the universal element in this text by adopting the minority reading linking “all men” with the verb “has appeared.” The problem with that interpretation is explaining in what sense salvation has appeared to all persons, since it is self-evident that there are those who never heard and those who never will hear the gospel. The solution of claiming that all persons are called by the Word of God at least by the “indirect” proclamation of the gospel (see Chapter IV, footnote 2, in Unconditional Good News) has not been convincing to all Lutherans. Lutheran historian Lars Nielsen Dahele is compelled to speculate about a postmortem confrontation, concluding that “the gospel, the message of salvation, testimony concerning Christ, must come to everyone before the final judgment can be passed upon him or her. If it does not reach them in this life, then we see no other conclusion that it will come to them after death.” (*10)

  Others conclude that Paul intends to say that the grace of God has appeared “saving all classes of men,” and they substantiate their contention by noting that various classes of men are mentioned in the immediate context. As noted earlier (see Observation 5 below) we find this solution unacceptable.

  Still others avoid absolute universalism by arbitrarily adding words such as “ capable of bringing salvation to all,” or “ offering salvation to all,” or “ providing salvation for all.” Such arbitrary additions will be necessary as long as one does not accept the fundamental premise that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be lost.

Hebrews 2:9b: “So that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.”

  The only attempt made to limit the universal-substitutionary element in this text is the claim that it refers to the category or kind of persons mentioned in the immediate context - those who are “sons,” “brethren” of Christ, and the “sanctified” (see vv. 10, 11). It is said that Christ tasted of death “for every one” in this classification of people.

  Grammatically, “every one” has a standing independent of those mentioned in the immediate context, although as a universal term it necessarily includes them. If, however, the author had intended the term “every one” to convey the idea of each individual within the category depicted in the context, he would have used a demonstrative pronoun, so that the translation would read: “so that he might taste death for all of these .”

  Plainly, this text is an individualistic universal, depicting the tasting of death in the place of “every one.” The singular form stresses the thought “every one individually.” Most English versions translate this verse accurately: they use no demonstrative pronoun to restrict this action of Christ to a particular category of persons. Whatever reasons there might be for restricting the text to everyone within a category of people are theological not grammatical.

  An accurate translation of this verse is readily agreed upon. It cannot be denied that it speaks of Christ as having tasted death “for every one.” To do justice to the text, in the light of the teachings of the Bible as a whole, it appears that one is required to choose between two conclusions. Either he “tasted death” (paid the price of sin) “for every one” and therefore some of those for whom Christ paid the price of sin are not ultimately saved (Arminian or Lutheran universalism); or, he tasted death” for everyone” and therefore all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be lost (Biblical Universalism).

John 3:17: “For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.”

John 12:47: “For I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.”

  The term “world” has many different meanings in Scripture, and the context must determine what it means in a given instance. In the light of what is found in other universalistic passages, most of the “world” texts could be readily and meaningfully understood in terms of biblical universalism. However, because they may be open to other interpretations we shall not use them as a support for biblical universalism. This is true of such texts as John 3:16; 6:33, 51; and 1 John 4:14. We shall, however, consider John 3:17 and John 12:47, because there is evidence that they can be rightly understood only in terms of biblical universalism.

  B. B. Warfield suggested that in the familiar words of John 3:16 “world” may have an ethical connotation, referring to the world of evil, that is, all that which is the contradiction of holiness, goodness, and righteousness. * (*11) Be that as it may, “world” obviously does not have reference to moral evil in John 3:17 or in John 12:47. These two verses point to Christ's intention to save “the world”: surely this is not the world of evil.

  The verb “to condemn” or “to judge” (the same word in Greek), in conjunction with it antonym “to save,” is ample evidence that the evangelist is speak of the world of people. Only human beings can be “judged” or “saved.” In William Hendriksen's words, “Salvation, in the fullest sense of the term (deliverance from punishment not only but from sin itself, and bestowal of everlasting life) was what God had in store for the world into which he sent his Son; not condemnation but salvation.” (*12)

  The term “world” in these verses is an undifferentiated totality. As such, whatever is said about it applies to each of its components (see Observation 4 below). John 3:17 and 12:47 tell us that the Son came into the world in order that the world (of people) should be saved. Listen to Warfield again:

The elect - they are not the residuum of the great conflagration, the ashes, so to speak, of the burnt-up world, gathered sadly together by the Creator, after the catastrophe is over, that He may make a new and perhaps better beginning with them and build from them, perchance, a new structure, to replace that which has been lost. Nay, they are themselves “the world.” (*13)

  Christ accomplishes his purpose; the world of human beings will not be lost; it will be saved, because all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be lost.

John 12:32: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all men to myself.”

  The meaning of this verse revolves around the expression “will draw.” The same term is used in John 7:44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” In this instance it undoubtedly means to effectively bring to salvation. Elsewhere he word “draw” is used to depict physical force. It is helpful to note that in every instance “draw” portrays a power that overcomes whatever resistance is offered. (*14)

  In John 12:32, therefore, there is reference to the effective drawing power of the cross of Christ, that is to salvation. We cannot say that this text teaches only a possible or potential salvation.

  To solve the “problem” of this text - that is, to get around the implication that the extension is universal - some point to the occasion which prompted Jesus to speak of the drawing power of his death. They maintain that when certain Greeks requested to see Jesus (vs. 21); his response was that by his death he would draw not only Jews to himself but “all classes” of men, including, possibly, those inquiring Greeks. However, as we noted in Observation 5 (below), there is no validity to the claim that the simple substantive “all” (in the plural) can be interpreted to mean “some persons of all classes.”

  But even if that interpretation were grammatically acceptable, it would have made the answer evasive as it related to the Greeks who had come to see Jesus. At most it would have assured them that some of their fellow citizens - some representatives of the class of persons called Greeks - would be drawn to Christ. Whether in fact they would be so drawn would be left entirely in the dark. There is no real joy in the universalism of the gospel if the proclamation is that “some persons of all classes” are saved. That kind of universalism gives assurance of salvation to no one. It proclaims “release” from prison (Luke 4:18) as an accomplished fact - to no one.

  A more plausible understanding of Jesus' response to these Greeks is this. He takes note of the fact that Satan, as the prince of this world, had all persons (distributively) under the power of sin. “Now shall the ruler of this world be cast out” (John 12:31). The binding power of sin is to be broken. The cross would overcome the “ruler of this world.” “For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all” ( Rom. 11:32). The obedience of Christ counteracts the disobedience of Adam (Rom. 5:18) in every instance except those specifically excluded by the analogy of Scripture.

  “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” This was indeed a relevant and joyous response to the Greeks who were making inquiry. If they did not “see Jesus,” or were not “drawn” to Christ, they have only themselves to blame, because the full benefit of Christ's being “lifted up from the earth” is shared by all persons, except those who do “not see fit to acknowledge God” (Rom. 1:28).

1 John 2:2: “And he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Perhaps no text in Scripture presents more plausible support to the doctrine of universal atonement . . . . The extension of the propitiation to “the whole world” would appear to allow for no other construction than that the propitiation for sins embraces the sins of the whole world. It must be said that the language John uses here would fit in perfectly with the doctrine of universal atonement if Scripture elsewhere demonstrated that to be a biblical doctrine. (*15)

   Having made this concession, John Murray then proceeds, as do most Reformed scholars, to argue that 1 John 2:2 does not necessarily teach a distributively universal atonement, since there are other reasons the apostle may have had for using the expression “for the whole world.” Murray mentions three possibilities: (1) to indicate the scope of Christ propitiation - not limited to the immediate circle of disciples, but extending to every nation and kindred and people and tongue; (2) to emphasize the exclusiveness of Jesus as the propitiation; there is no other sacrifice for sin; the whole world needs him; (3) to remind his readers of the perpetuity of Christ's propitiation; he continues to be the only hope in every age of world history.

  Various Reformed scholars have selected one or another of these options. The apostle John, however, did not intend that his readers would be required to select one from many possible meanings. Murray himself appears to favor a combination of all three; “Hence the scope , the exclusiveness and the perpetuity of the propitiation provided sufficient reason for John to say, “not for ours only but also for the whole world.'” (*16)

  We must now ask “How can it be that scope, exclusiveness, and perpetuity are all implied in the expression “the whole world?” The words themselves carry no such diverse a range of meanings. Careful analysis discloses that such inferences are present only when the expression is accepted as a distributively universal statement. Only because “the whole world” is a universal declaration does it imply that Christ is the propitiation for the sin of all peoples and nations, that Christ's sacrifice is the exclusive provision for payments of sin and that the atonement is needed in every age of the world's history.

  We need not hesitate to accept the distributive universalism of this text, for which the language of John is “perfectly fitted,” because the exception to this universal declaration are found in the broader context of Scripture, thereby averting absolute universalism.

  Can we perhaps say that there is in this text a potential or provisional salvation (a universalis gratia ) which Christ has obtained for all persons without any exceptions? Expiation or propitiation means appeasement or the cause for turning away wrath. So if it is true that Christ is the cause for turning away wrath for all persons without any exception, then there is no more condemnation for anyone. Any future punishment for sin would be capricious, since God's just wrath would have been satisfied by Christ's sacrifice.

  It should also be noted that the conjunction “and” at the beginning of this verse indicates its close association with the preceding context. Thus Jesus Christ is “an advocate with the Father” for all those for whose sins “he is the expiation.” Those for whom he is an advocate and those for whom he is the expiation are coextensive, as Murray points out. (*17) Jesus himself is both the lawyer and the evidence for permitting righteous wrath to be turned away from those who deserve it. (*18) With such an advocate, who is himself the perfect expiation, the fate of those represented by him cannot be in doubt.

  If 1 John 2:2 and other universalistic texts are seen in the light of the entire context of Scripture they can be most readily understood as teaching the premise of biblical universalism - namely, that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible declares will be lost.

- - - - - - - - - -

OBSERVATIONS

OBSERVATION 1

   In Posting # 2 ( at www.BiblicalUniversalism.com ) we demonstrated that the 400-year-old Arminian/Calvinist debate has established with finality that the translators have given us an accurate translation of the so-called “universalistic” texts that are listed above.  We must accept these texts just as we find them in our English and Greek Bibles.

  No one can reasonably deny that these texts speak of a “certain-to-be-realized” salvation as Calvinists have historically maintained and they do so in terms of “all persons” as Arminians have always affirmed. What one does with this fact is debatable but the fact itself cannot be denied. The first principle of sound interpretation is that whatever is less clear must be understood in the light of what is clear in any given passage. What is clear is that these texts speak of a “certain-to-be-realized” salvation in terms of “all persons.”

  We have an obligation, after hearing what these texts say, to interpret them in a manner consistent with the entire context of the Scriptures. One such interpretation is that suggested by Dr. Charles Hodge (see Posting #2) that “all the descendants of Adam . . . are saved” and that only the Bible itself may make exceptions to this premise.

  We refer to Hodge's premise as Biblical Universalism because it does justice to the universalistic language found throughout the Bible. One inevitable consequence of denying Hodge's premise is to concede to the absolute universalists the strongest grammatical evidence that is found in the “all,” ”all persons,” “every,” and “world” passages of the Bible.

OBSERVATION 2

  The fact that a text and its immediate context speak of the full benefits of salvation in Christ does not rule out the universal extension of the text, as Reformed theologians have vainly argued. Arminians and certain Lutherans will not concede the universal extension of these texts when biblical word studies and all the accepted rules of interpretation favor the universal extension of these texts that they need as a constituent part of their theology.

  The real problem for Arminianism is the fact that these universalistic texts speak of an actual, a “certain to be realized,” salvation and not merely of a potential or provisional salvation. Inasmuch as these texts clearly speak of a “certain-to-be-realized” salvation in terms of “all persons,” what possible meaning can they have within the framework of an Arminian theology?

  Even when accepting the universal extension of these texts we are kept from a presumptuous absolute universalism by the larger context of the Scriptures that makes exceptions to the teaching set forth in these universalistic passages.

OBSERVATION 3

  Reformed theologians have been quick to say that most of the universalistic passages do no more than reflect the fact that in the New Testament God's overtures of grace are extended to Gentiles as well as Jews. This, they say, accounts for the “all,” “all persons,” “every” and “world” passages.

  Because nearly every book in the New Testament speaks of the pivotal truth that in Christ “the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph. 2:14) between Jews and Gentiles has been broken down, we are not dependent on any of the universalistic passages to be convinced of this historical development. Every universalistic text, by virtue of its being universal, does make reference to both Jews and Gentiles. Therefore, the mention of Jews and Gentiles in the immediate context does not demonstrate that the author intended to merely make reference to two categories of people and not to “all people” distributely.

  The use of such terms as “all,” “all persons,” “every” and “world” is a very indirect way of making reference to two categories or classes of people. The preferred expression would be “both Jews and Gentiles.” This formulation is employed when so intended (see Acts 14:5; 19:10; 20:21; Rom. 3:9; 1 Cor. 1:24 etc.).

OBSERVATION 4

  We may not simply rely on the words “all,” “all persons,” “every” and “world” to resolve the issue of extent. Such terms are often limited by their immediate context. It must be kept in mind, however, that the primary meaning of such expressions is universal in scope. We may limit their extension only if the immediate or extended context of the Scriptures as a whole require such limiting.

  The rule is that when the Greek word for “all” (in the plural) is used without the article it refers to a totality. What is said of the totality is to be considered true of each of the component parts individually, unless there is something which modifies such a deduction. “The generic use of the adjective ‘all' (as in ‘all men') refers to each one in a group, though not with such stress on the individual that there can be no exceptions” ( Theological Dictionary of the New Testament , Eerdmans, 1967, V, p. 888).

OBSERVATION 5

  Some responsible scholarship contends that the Greek “all” can mean “all kinds” or “all classes” (just as the German alle can occasionally mean allerlei ). A few of the universalistic references mention various classes of individuals in their immediate context and therefore seem to prepare the way for interpreting “all” as “all kinds.”

  However, no Bible translation uses “all kinds” in place of “all” and The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (op. cit.) gives no warrant for doing so. A. C. DeJong states: “ All in the plural without the article can have various meanings but, seldom, if ever, means all classes, all types or all kinds” ( The Well-Meant Gospel Offer , Franeker, 1954, p. 173).

  An even more substantial reason for rejecting “all kinds” or “all classes” as a translation for “all,” in these universalistic passages, is the fact that “classes of persons” denotes an abstraction which can exist only in one's mind. Such abstractions do not need nor are they capable of receiving “salvation” as it is referred to in these passages.

  To bring these abstractions back into reality, it is said that the “all men” texts refer to “some persons of all classes.” This, however, is so far removed from what these texts actually say that this is not a viable interpretation. Consider how the Bible designates “some persons of all classes” in a non-abstract way (see Acts 2:5; Rev. 5:9; ;7:9).

  A listing of various “classes” or “kinds” of people in the immediatge context does not necessarily account for the “all” and “every” terms. Indeed, the reverse is often the case. It is the “all” (a universally valid truth) of Titus 2:11 that accounts for various “classes” of people being listed in the immediate context (vv. 2-10) - as the “for” at the beginning of verse 11 indicates (see also John 12:32; Rom. 11:32; 1 Tim. 2:6).

  The force of the claims and obligations of these passages place on all persons is lost when it is said that the universal truth they proclaim applies only to “some people of all classes.” The demands, obligations and authority of Christ's kingship apply to all persons distributively , and allegiance to him is required of all persons whether or not they acknowledge his kingship.

- - - - - - - - - -

FOOTNOTES

(*1) Vol. II, p. 874.

(*2) See vv. 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 29, 30

(*3) Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New International

Commentary on the New Testament) ( Grand Rapids : Eerdmans), 1953, p. 363.

(*4) John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1955), p. 71. For further substantiation that Scripture teaches that all who die with Christ also live with him, see Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:10; Col. 3:1-5, 1 Pet. 4:1, 2.

(*5) Agape and Eros , tr. Philip Watson (London: SPCK, 1957) pp. 132f.

(*6) DeJong, The Well-meant Gospel Offer , p. 174.

(*7) The same meaning is apparent in Luke 1:47; 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Eph. 5:25; Phil. 3:20; Phil. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:3; Titus 2:10, 13; 5:4, 6; 1 John 4:14.

(*8) See also Titus 1:3, 4; 2 Pet. 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; Jude 25.

(*9) See Acts 20:38; 25:26; 26:3; Gal. 6:10; Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 4:10; 5:8, 17; Titus 1:10; Phm. 16; 2 Pet. 2:10.

(*10) Life After Death , tr. J. Beveridge (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), p. 187.

(*11) The Savior of the World (London; Hodder & Stoughton, 1913), p. 118.

(*12) New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1961), 1, p. 142.

(*13) Op. cit., p. 124.

(*14) See John 18:10; 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; 21:30j; James 2:6. See also Hendriksen, op. cit., 1, p. 238.

(*15) Murray , Redemption , p. 72.

(*16) Ibid., p. 74.

(*17) Ibid., p. 75.

(*18) John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (London: Banner of Truth, 1959), presents biblical evidence to establish that those for whom Christ made oblation are the same individuals for whom he makes intercession (pp. 70-88).